I too did a re-read of the ruling and I would appreciate your and others opinons on the following footnotes:
37 This issue is important to claim construction, because it is relevant to understanding in what manner the ring oscillator is “non-controllable,” as distinguished from the voltage-controlled oscillator disclosed in Talbot. Resolving this conflict might affect how the Court approaches issues with respect to the validity of the patent claim at issue.
I had been under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the USPTO re-exams were about validity whereas the current litigation is about infringment only. Please correct me if I am wrong but it appears that we are also dealing with validity of the 336 (or at least the most important claim of the 336) and if it goes down so do the rest of the patents in suit in which the term appears. see footnote 10 below
10 Subject to further proceedings, the Court’s construction of any particular term is presumed to apply consistently across all claims in the Patents-in-Suit in which the term appears. See, e.g., Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Perhaps the one positive thing that can help is the representation regarding similar terms made during the prosecution of the '148. Conversely, if the '336 goes down, what happens, if anything, to the '148?
31 Because the ‘148 Patent shares the same specification with the ‘336 Patent and is directly related to the other three Patents-in-Suit, the Court finds that any representation regarding similar terms made by the inventors during the prosecution of the ‘148 Patent is relevant to its consideration and construction of the terms in the ‘336 Patent. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Any statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a related application as to the scope of the invention would be relevant to claim construction.”).
(emphases by me)
